The Global Warming Diversion

Written By: B-verLu-ver
Date: 2007-04-09 12:03:55
<a href="/article/100355104-the-global-warming-diversion">Article Link</a>

"What images come to mind when we think of global warming? Melting polar ice caps? Human technology spewing toxins into the atmosphere? The very term itself invokes a sense of urgency, responsibility, and even guilt from within the deepest part of the human consciousness. While I am not opposed to combating any negative influences we may be incurring on our planet, the truth is that climate change has yet to be proven a direct result of human activity. In fact, some contest the very existence of global warming.

Nonetheless, the purpose of this article is not to dispute that humans may at least be partially responsible for changes in the world’s weather, but let us imagine for a moment—just a moment—that climate change were wholly the result of a natural cycle of earth changes (humor me, I am going somewhere with this). Let us also say that despite nature’s role in this, somehow (through the mainstream media) everyone became convinced of the opposite—that humans were indeed responsible for global warming. Now let’s imagine that we managed to implement all the new laws and technologies deemed necessary, whatever those may be, for our societies to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Further, let us envisage that after several years still no change in weather patterns resulted. The earth continued its trend toward a bubbling cauldron of catastrophe. At that point in time, it might be reasonable to assume that there would be a push back toward the use of fossil fuels, as they would, through lack of demand, become vastly cheaper than they are today, and under this scenario also have been proven to be not the culprit responsible for climate change."

For more on this subject matter, please refer to my article entitled "The Global Warming Diversion" posted at <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/gwdiversion.php">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/gwdiversion.php</a>

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 10, 2007]

The whole point of Global Warming(TM) is to con the people of the world into accepting a globalized taxation system. If the globalist elites are successful, then additional forms of globalized taxation will soon follow, which in turn will allow for the funding of a globalized system of government that will be accountable to no one but itself.

Meanwhile, the world's environment will be no better off, and most likely far worse off than before.

When politicians jump onto virtually any bandwagon, you know that it's just about the taxes. The attitude they exhibit is that global warming (or fill your favorite cause celebre) is actually our fault, and we are gonna have to pay, pay, pay.......

Well, in this particular case, the reason we are gonna have to pay is because there was no front end loading. And there was no front end loading because the people (such as the Rockefellers and theri ilk) wanted to move product. That's how they make their billions. It's called skimming.

It's exactly like Ed Deak maintains. But where would we be today, if the costs we will be facing were tacked on in the beginning? There would have been a plethora of "alternative" fuels, and there would have been an immediate jump to higher efficiency energy production. But oil and it's derivatives were offered up initially as a loss leader, and presented as a kind of WalMart "always low prices".

---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck

Many people have been misled by disinformation groups, and the author of this article seems to be one of those people. I'd like to share some links in the hopes that the flat Earth society doesn't win even more people over. <a href="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html">Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study</a> <a href="http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-economics.html">climate change & economics</a> <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics">climate change skeptics corrected</a> <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/">DeSmogBlog</a> <a href="http://section15.blogspot.com/2007/03/climate-scientist-says-he-was-duped.html">climate scientist duped</a> Also, let's imagine for a moment that we chose to act on the climate crisis, reducing fossil fuel consumption and consequently pollutants in the air, and let's say we choose to invest more in energy efficiency. If for some reason one is not sold on global warming or climate change, and one further thinks that somehow humans are having little or no impact on Earth's climate, I'd like to hear why they think acting on climate change would not be a good thing? Our economy can only get stronger when we invest in renewable technologies. The big oil companies understand this, and have recently rebranded themselves as 'energy companies'. They are making their corporations more efficient, and they are looking to the future of energy with investments in alternative forms of energy. Acting on climate change is good for people and good for the planet.--- "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." 
- Albert Einstein

To blame the apparent global warming on a single cause, specifically a human cause, in my opinion seems an absurd approach.

CO2 makes up slightly under 0.04 percent of Earth's atmosphere, and we're being led to believe that it alone is responsible for driving "global warming"?

Talk about a "flat earth" hypothesis.

And before anyone brings up Venus as a "greenhouse planet", I'll put the brakes on that right now: Venus atmosphere is 96 percent CO2, and Venus is roughly 25 percent CLOSER to the sun than Earth. Venus also has a surface atmospheric pressure of 92.7 kg/cm^2 to Earth's 1.03 kg/cm^2, roughly 90 times the pressure.

To put it in old imperial: Earth's 14.7 lbs per square inch at sea level, Venus is 1323 lbs per square inch.

Earth is a system, and a system approach is needed to fully understand what's going on.

The panic stricken words of politician A, alarms raised by the MSM (which profits from panic and fear almost exclusively), the endorsements of celebrities as to the "righteousness of the cause", and biased "facts" do not make any position true.

Does CO2 play a role? Quite likely, but at best a small one. It alone cannot be wholly responsible, and other factors must also be examined. But interestingly it is the only one where any money can be made. That fact alone makes the CO2 hypothesis extremely suspect.

Also, unpopular science doesn't get as much funding as science that supports current popular scientific dogma.

You want to get to the root of global warming, then examine EVERYTHING in detail. Just because an idea is in vogue doesn't by default make it right.

It is, as it turns out, playing out exactly like the Theory of Eugenics did in the last century.

And to discount that piece of history is to be doomed to repeat it.

Am I sceptical of the carbon only hypothesis?

Yes, extremely so.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

"If for some reason one is not sold on global warming or climate change, and one further thinks that somehow humans are having little or no impact on Earth's climate, I'd like to hear why they think acting on climate change would not be a good thing?"

Okay, ever hear of something called "a waste of time and resources"?

Why do you expect that someone, who doesn't buy into your arguments concerning a measurable phenomenon, would take the actions you want to take?

As for what big oil does, you can't be that naive.

EVERYTHING they do has to do with money, even name changes.

Science has little to do with public perception.

They changed names to make themselves appear greener than they are.

"Acting on climate change is good for people and good for the planet."

Nice buzzwords. Completely unprovable, but they make a good advertising tag line.

Tell me, what would you do concerning "climate change"?

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Diversion from WHAT??? From polluting the planet and heating it up, which is what you WANT to do???

"climate change has yet to be proven a direct result of human activity."
False. Unless you believe the theory that the Earth is spherical has yet to be proven and the moon landings were hoaxed.

Some of the most extensive and rigorous testing in human scientific history has been applied to this, more so than most other theories we assume are true in our everyday life.

"In fact, some contest the very existence of global warming."

I'll give you that. You mean, like Republican senators with their life savings invested in Exxon shares? Yeeees, you mean like the current president ex oil baron of Texas? Yessss. Any scientists, not on government or oil company payrolls? No.

Look, I understand your distrust of MSM, they are fear monger cheerleaders, for sure.

But this has no forseeable bad outcome! Why NOT embrace it??? Other than, IT'S TRUE, IT'S REAL, ect, which I am comfortable with.

It's like complaining that the MSM is now harping too much about obesity and eating right and getting exercise! Sure, go ahead, pig yourself to death at Mikkey D's if you like, but if you want to live, exercise and eat right.

If you want to live, reduce your carbon emissions and start thinking about the environment in everything you do.

I personally believe it is too late to stop the heating, but I am still going to do everything I can to try to help out.

If your going to peddle conspiracy theories on the faking of global warming, please provide your evidence, and the reasons MSM and gov would WANT this. Everything I have seen indicates that big business and government are really ANNOYED by this, would prefer it go away! Is that your agenda?

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Deacon, please read the text at all of the links from my post above with an open mind. Your replies show that you have not done so. It took me months to gather that data, and you dismissed it in a few minutes. Did you already have you mind made up, or are you an open-minded person?

I'm more than happy to have a discussion on the subject once you have all of the facts, but the links were provided so that I wouldn't have to continue to repeat the facts over and over in forum after forum.

---
"The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation."
- Albert Einstein

Actually, I did read them. I'm just not as easily convinced as some others. 
 
Example: 
 
"Second, they [skeptics] need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?" 
 
Sounds scary enough, except that when you do the math, you're working with the number 0.04 x .35 = 0.014. 
 
That's 4 hundredths of one percent of earth's atmosphere times point three five. 
 
Now if you were talking about chlorofluorocarbons at those levels, then I'd be worried. Why? Because their greenhouse ability is 9000 times of carbon dioxide. 
 
Then again, they don't directly state WHAT is the second greenhouse gas. If including water vapour (which the list doesn't seem to; see link), then according to the IPCC it is CO2. If not, then it's methane. Some clarity please. 
 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases</a> 
 
Sorry, but something's smelling fishy. 
 
Also, I am not denying that the temperature is increasing. I'm just extremely sceptical about what's being bantered about as the cause. 
 
As for your critique of my not having an open mind, just because I submit that carbon based gases alone are not the sole culprits does not mean I have a closed mind. 
 
It just means that when someone yells "the sky is falling", I ask questions and don't follow the herd. 
 
If you want an easy rollover, talk to someone else. 
 
I do my own thinking, and if somehow bothers you I can live with it. 
 
If you want a frank discussion with someone who's not going to kiss your ass, then let me know. 
 
Now, I'm still curious as to what you'd do about global warming. Right now I see a whole lot of feathers but not much chicken.--- The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Sarge, ranting doesn't become you.

I'm not denying global warming, I'm just not buying the package as is.

If something strikes me as being suspicious I will keep looking into it until my suspicions are either proven unfounded, or they are confirmed.

Right now I don't buy into the carbon only myth.

In my opinion it's the scientific equivalent of the lone gunman theory.

Yes, climate change appears to be happening.

Is it solely the result of human activity?

That is what I am attempting to find out.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

"Second, they [skeptics] need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?" Sounds scary enough, except that when you do the math, you're working with the number 0.04 x .35 = 0.014. That's 4 hundredths of one percent of earth's atmosphere times point three five. Your math is wrong. For example, a 35% increase is shown like this: 100 x 1.35 = 135 What you showed us was a reduction that is incorrect and not based on fact. Was that a mistake on your part? There is more that is wrong with your logic. It's said that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' and I hope you can see that you're missing part of the picture. "Also, I am not denying that the temperature is increasing. I'm just extremely sceptical about what's being bantered about as the cause." There's skeptical and then there's 'flat-Earth-society-fingers-in-the-ears-&-head-in-the-tarsands' skeptical. It's not banter when the scientific community agrees. Read the recent IPCC report, and please read the text at the links above. "As for your critique of my not having an open mind, just because I submit that carbon based gases alone are not the sole culprits does not mean I have a closed mind." You misrepresent me. I never said that was why I thought you might not have an open mind. There are other reasons. "It just means that when someone yells "the sky is falling", I ask questions and don't follow the herd." Me too, so we have that in common. But wait - did someone yell the 'sky is falling', or was it that the IPCC confirmed that climate change is caused by humans? There's a difference, but if you don't want to listen to scientific consensus then it will be difficult to have a meaningful debate with you. "If you want an easy rollover, talk to someone else." I always like a good discussion. I find it to be a waste of my time when I end up saying the same thing over and over and the person I'm debating with isn't listening. You've been presented with facts, and you have ignored them. Re-read the text at the links above and tell us what you have a problem with if you'd like. It's all very clear and I'm not sure what you're having trouble with. "I do my own thinking, and if somehow bothers you I can live with it." Why would that bother me? It is a very good idea to do your own thinking. "If you want a frank discussion with someone who's not going to kiss your ass, then let me know." Certainly. Let's have it! :-)

"Now, I'm still curious as to what you'd do about global warming." You might find this article interesting: http://www.thejohnrobson.com/columns/2007/070223.htm And this would fall under the category of 'strategies I support': http://www.greenparty.ca/files/GP2-Report-Eng.pdf What I wouldn't do is engage in what is known as 'fiddling while the Earth burns'. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0417-24.htm Now I have to make dinner for my family, and then I have band practice, so if you do have a reply please be patient while you wait for my response.--- "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." 
- Albert Einstein

What my math showed, was the total increase.

which was an increase of the amount of carbon dioxide by a whopping 0.014 percent of earth's atmosphere.

I failed to state that, the fault there is mine.

That you failed to see it, however, is yours.

Nice attack though, proves nothing other than my failure to state that as an increase.

I have to go for a few hours, but when I get back I'll read your link.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Deacon, I'll have to refer you to the hundreds of climatologists who are actual experts on the science of climate change. You'd be wasting your time asking me to argue against you figures, as I am but one average person and cannot devote my life to debunking climate skeptics.

The links said it all, and your reply has not proved that climate change is not human caused. Your time would be better spent discussing this with an expert, and my time would be better spent working for positive change.

Thank you for the discussion.

---
"The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation."
- Albert Einstein

This just in... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/climate_adaptation Canada's biggest funder of climate research has run out of money By Dennis Bueckert (excerpts from the article - see link for full story) OTTAWA (CP) - Even as a UN report calls for better research on adaptation to climate change, Canada's most important funding agency for climate research says it has run out of money. Gordon McBean, chair of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, says he can't even arrange a meeting with Environment Minister John Baird to discuss the situation. Research already under way will be completed, said McBean, but no new projects can be taken on despite many good proposals... ...The UN study, whose main elements have been reported over the last two weeks, says countries must focus not only on curbing greenhouse emissions, but also on preparing for impacts that cannot be avoided, which is referred to as adaptation. "The vulnerability of North America depends on the effectiveness and timing of adaptation and the distribution of coping capacity," says the report. "There is a need for improved understanding of the relationship between changes in average climate and those extreme events with the greatest potential impact on North America, including hurricanes, other severe storms, heat waves, floods and prolonged droughts." It says North America's aging infrastructure and aging population will compound the effects of global warming. "Without increased investments in countermeasures, hot temperature and extreme weather are likely to cause increased adverse health impacts from heat-related mortality, pollution, storm-related fatalities and injuries and infectious diseases." Yet scientists told the briefing that Canada has no national adaptation strategy. "Until now adaptation has been a neglected option in this picture," said Ian Burton, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. No comment could be obtained from Baird's office Tuesday. He did issue a statement in response to the UN report last week but it contained no reference to adaptation. "...serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air we breathe for Canadians today and for the future," he said. The UN report gave examples of climate impacts already seen in North America. For example, snow melt has declined 15 to 30 per cent in the Western mountains since 1950 and many bird and animal species have shifted their ranges north or to higher elevations. In Canada, the area burned by forest fires has exceeded 60,000 square kilometers three times since 1990, twice the long-term average. The infestation of mountain pine beetle continues to expand into areas which used to be too cold for the insects... --- "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." 
- Albert Einstein

My band practice was canceled, so I dug up another link for you.. <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84">no proof that CO2 is causing global warming?</a> p-l-e-a-s-e read the comments on that webpage. Your CO2 musings are thoroughly discussed. Why some people are so firmly opposed to acting on climate change I'll never know. If it's from a lack of good information, one would hope that proper information can remedy the situation.--- "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." 
- Albert Einstein